[Reader-list] Correction!

[we wi]

The quotations in this mail are from RASHNEEKS Iconoclasm in Kashmir-Motives and Magnitude-V.

we wi <dhatr1i at yahoo.com> wrote:  Dear Partha,

I saw and read your earlier remarks and comments over pawan,chanchal mails. I feel happy(myself and of-course on behalf of Rashneek) if you would have directly responded to the 5 volumes of rashneek mails instead of responding this way. I am damn sure that Rashneek will be more joyful for his efforts in bringing the tormented age old history point wise in front of the readers by eradicating the myths created because of ABCD reasons, provided you would have responded directly to his mails. I would like to question you why don't you come-out on your own-way, instead of responding to somebody.


Let me quote from rashneeks "Iconoclasm in Kashmir-Motives and Magnitude-III"

"
> when you are born in a certain land you learn so many things unwittingly."

If I slightly change this , 

If you are born in a certain land and 
1) You didn't learn few things at least(not so many) its your fault.
2) Though you learn but kept aside again its your fault(you learned but kept them out
you wasted the time in learning them first and for not using them second).


Though NALANDA and TAKSHASILA(TAXILA) universities burnt and literature ruined in places like Kashmir along with people, there are books kept at different places. Rajatarangini is just a rain drop in the SANSKRIT LITERATURE OCEAN. Apart from the Vedas to Ramayana,Mahabharata,Bhagavat every thing is Sanskrit. If I start mentioning the great people,book names the list is so vast. VALMIKI,VYASA, ... to ADI SANKARA,PATANJALI,CHARAKA,JAIMINI,ARYABHATTA,CHANAKYA,BANA,
GUNADYA,PANINI,KALIDAS,BHOJA,BHATRUHARI,KRISHNADEVARAYA... so many kings,poets,scholars. The reasons are different for these people to become poets and kings 
and so as their actions(Not the way so called historians noted and the people used the caste and religion and using still) irrespective or their caste and religion. When come to know about the reality and the motive one should feel a sorry for their anguish and illiteracy 
to understanding the things, but by the time the successfull destruction will be completed.


If you read GURUCHARITRA (come to know about the stories at least) either Sanskrit/Devanagari or whatever language version, you come to know that MLECCHA is the term used in that book as well. Like that many words and idioms are just mingled in common peoples life imposed directly from Sanskrit.

" >There are so many phrases and idioms in the language that tell us of our past,the >bedtime stories are a world of knowledge which no book of history can suffice for.The >vakhs and shrukhs that ordinary people on the street quote tell us about the socio-cultural >aspect of the age when that vakh/shrukh was written."

I inspire for the above said lines because they are true and stand for all practical purposes. Sanskrit ruled India irrespective of place. The regional languages are created either dumping the Sanskrit words and terminology used in those days fully or partially. If your 2nd language is either Sanskrit or your mother tongue then you can come to know about the things and of course you can gain knowledge outside as well (whether it is use full or not).

--Next coming back to the argument,

People ransacked India created new history and campaigning it in their own way feeling that they did best, but they fail to think and locate about the original preserved history and the exact meanings. 

Who is stopping you or anybody to participate in country development or Nation building in a CONSTRUCTIVE WAY? Does it really happening the answer is a definite no, rather the destruction is still going on in more worsen way. You could not create a counter logic like the one you framed in this mail or any other mails to support whatever I don't wish to point them out repeatedly.

Regards,
Dhatri.

Partha Dasgupta 
wrote:
Hi,

1. 'Mlechha' was a derogatory term to describe people who 'did not 
follow Vedic principles' much as 'Firang' is used today for 'foreigners'. 
It was also used to refer to Meat Eaters which covers a vast part of 
the tribals who can not by any stretch of imagination be considered
foreigners.

2. The usage of the word 'Turk' for Harsha was a distancing by the local
populace in those days to disassociate the King from the trend. However, 
if 'foreigner;, 'outsider' and 'mlechha' are considered, then Harsha was by
birth and place certainly a Hindu and not a Turk. In fact, even as per the
Rajatarangini he ate pork and was not a full convert to Islam. 

3. Rashneek's debate is not about outsiders/foreigners. It is about the destruction
of religious structures - which Harsha as a Hindu ruler did to both Temples and
Buddhist monastries irrespective of what relegion they followed. 

4. Even if we reach a point where we accept conversion (thereby happily throwing
Harsha out of the 'Hindu' group and disowning his activities), it does not make
Muslims outsiders. Other than any one else who may have converted for whatever 
reason, "the Turk king Harsha" as he's referred to in the Rajatarangini was certainly
a local and cannot be considered an outsider however his behaviour may have been.
We may want to disown him, but that does not change Harsha's origin. 

5. All that aside, let us for a moment agree that Islamic iconoclasts did despoil
some temples some decades or centuries back. Now what? Are we going to rebuild
all those temples after researching how many were destroyed and where? While we 
are going about doing that will we remove the British and Portugese structures all over
India - including the North/South Blocks and a host of other buildings. That sounds 
rather ridiculous to me and if that time & money is going to be spent I do hope it's 
spent on education, hospitals, infrastructure and tons of other areas that this country
needs shoring up on.

Rgds, Partha
.................................

On Jan 9, 2008 5:53 PM, we wi < dhatr1i at yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Rashneek,

This is really Great work and nice explanation on myths. Not only the terms turk produces the meaning (outsiders/foreigners who were Muslims in this case) but also the term mleccha will also produce the same meaning(outsiders/foreigners who were Muslims in this case) widely used to refer in times. 

Regards,
Dhatri.


rashneek kher wrote:
PART-III



I am devoting this part to Harsha alone.This is because he has been
pulled out of the historical wilderness time and again by the Marxist
historians.This one example is used as a counterweight the huge
historical evidence that we have to support religious persecution and 
Iconoclasm by hundreds of muslim rulers all over south Asia and not
just Kashmir alone.

It seems as if just because Harsha did what Muslim rulers followed as
a matter of policy and an instrument of abuse we are to condone their 
acts.



Harsha"The Iconoclast"



Let us first see how Shudda looks at Kalhana especially in the context
of the above discussion.



My learned friend writes



*"We know that Kalhana describes Sankaravarman as a destroyer of sixty

four temples. But the motives for this destruction, which Kalhana

attributes to greed alone, can be read differently"*



This leaves me thoroughly confused for one hand Shudda questions
Kalhana's un-biased view on History as you will read above he raises a
question mark and says"*can be read differently"* while at the 
beginning of second series of his essay he says



*Kalhana's importance for the understanding of early medieval history in
**South Asia** is unquestionable. Especially because his writing embodies a 

singular and significant model for historiographic investigation and

accounting, rare in the pre - Islamicate cultures of **South Asia**. He

describes and lists the events that mark the reigns of rulers without 

favour or prejudice. He makes an effort at consistence and attempts to

maintains a rigourous standard as far as chronology and the duration of

reigns is concerned. His descriptions of everyday life, of the seasons, 

of customs, religious beliefs, rituals, war and political intrigue - all

furnish valuable details about what life would have been like in
**Kashmir**. He explicitly marks a distinction between the mythic and the 

historic phases of his narrative. He is especially important because

reading Kalhana, one finds it impossible to state that iconoclasm and

secterian strife was the special preserve of Muslim rulers in **South 

Asia**, as Hindutva apologists are wont to do.*



Please read the last line carefully.I post it again for the benefit of
the readers



*He is especially important because

reading Kalhana, one finds it impossible to state that iconoclasm and 

secterian strife was the special preserve of Muslim rulers in **South

Asia**, as Hindutva apologists are wont to do.*

* *

*Now let Shudda show me a line wherein I have said that Iconoclasm and 
Secterian Strife was the preserve of Muslim Rulers alone*



To make my point of view clear on this I am quoting myself from an
article I wrote long back for Greater Kashmir(a separatist leaning
newspaper published from Srinagar).This shall prove beyond doubt what 
my take is on the kings of Kashmir,irrespective of their religious
leanings..

* *

*"Only when one looks back into the pages of history one realizes how
unfortunate have we been. Except for three kings ie Lalitaditya Muktapida, 
Avantivarman and Sultan Zainulabidin in whose regimes we saw development and
prosperity in Kashmir,we have mostly been ruled by cruel despots.Till the
advent of Islam we have been ruled by kings who were more or less indigenous 
rulers except for Asoka and rulers of Kushana dynasty. With the advent of
Islam, we had kings of foreign origin ruling us. However the uniting thread
among all these kings was their cruelty and in dealing with their subjects." 
*

* *

*Romila Thapar and Harbans Mukhiya-Lies and Un-substantiated Claims*



Let us examine what Romila Thapar,A L Basham and Mukhiya have to say
about iconoclasm by Hindu kings in Kashmir in their various 
articles.Although I could not put my hands on all the articles which
Shudda had referred to yet I did read enough to get a hang of what
Romila Thapar(whose knowledge and erudition of Sanskrit has always
been a question mark) and Mukhiya whose Marxist leftist credentials 
have never been under question.So we kind of know which side of their
bread is buttered.We will try and understand what Basham says about
"Harsha the Iconoclast".I am leaving Mukhiya alone but if need be ,we 
will discuss his understanding of Harsha as well.I will also like the
forum to read through this piece of extremely unbiased work by an
American Student.

* *

*Puzzling Dimensions and Theoretical Knots in my **Graduate** 
**School** Research By Yvette Claire Rosser, M.A., Ph.D. *

* *

*http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/s_es/s_es_rosse_puzzle_frameset.htm* 

*A few days later I met with Professor Romila Thapar and told her Prof.
Mukhia had told me that she could provide information substantiate the
hypothesis that Hindu rulers in the past had regularly destroyed temples in 
neighboring kingdoms. She said that she had not written anything but that
Richard Eaton, an American scholar had recently written about this
phenomenon in the introduction of his latest book. *

*A few months later in the December 9 and 16 editions of Frontline published 
by the Leftist leaning editor N. Ram of The Hindu newspaper Dr. Eaton did
publish a long article in two parts that discussed in detail the destruction
and desecration of various temples during the Medieval Period. In his 
article, Eaton attempted to prove the assertion made by Dr. Mukhia's and his
colleagues. However it was argued, Eaton failed to understand the difference
in scale and magnitude between the few times Hindus raided the temples of 
other kings, and the much more wide spread and architecturally devastating
attacks from Muslim armies.*

*I spoke with Professors Thapar and Mukhia and told them that I had heard
about Harsha in **Kashmir**, recounted by the poet Kalhana in the 
'Rajtarangini'. Harsha destroyed some temples and viharas, but most scholars
consider Harsha's actions as exceptions to the usual practice. I pointed out
that all of the literature indicates that Harsha was definitely only looting 
the temples for gold and riches, not desecrating them for ideological
reasons. Though the result is the same, the temples were attacked, the
intent and the scale of the destruction was very different. **I also
mentioned that there seems to have been one or two instances in Rajasthan
and **Gujarat** where competing Maharajas raided temples in the neighboring
kingdom and stole a murti (consecrated statue) which was considered to be 
endowed with powerful attributes. Then, bringing it back to his own kingdom,
the king erected a new and more fabulous temple for the murti. This type of
vandalism is a very different case, the murti was removed as a trophy not as 
an unholy thing to be desecrated. In the accounts that I had heard, the king
who had looted the temple of his adversary did not throw the captured statue
in the roadway or bury it into the staircase of a religious structure in his 
kingdom to be trod upon, but, interestingly, he built an even grander temple
and had it installed with fanfare. Though the actions may have similarities,
the motivations were very different. *

*I also suggested that these types of attacks on temples were not 
representative of usual practice, but in fact were very much the exception
to the rule. Even after reading the Eaton article, I was not impressed by
the meager evidence. Though the article very few verifiable examples offered 
to substantiate this often-repeated claim that Hindus were just a guilty as
Muslims for breaking statues and destroying temples. I told suggested to
several Leftist scholars in Indian that they should stop using that tact 
about the Hindus destroying temples, because hardly anyone in
**India**really believes them. The
evidence that Hindus were equally culpable for the destruction of temples
and viharas, similar to the large scale destruction of Hindu temples by the 
various Muslim dynasties is simply untenable. Though the Marxist historians
in **India** use the case of King Harsh in **Kashmir**, it is a rare
historical exception, certainly not proof of a legacy of Hindu-driven 
carnage. Yet the historians who make these claims have failed to uncover any
real evidence to substantiate their theory of Hindu aggression. *

Let us move on to see what an independent Belgian Indologist Keonraad 
Elst has to say about claims made by Romila Thapar about Harsh's
iconoclasm.Thapar's claims seem to have found favour with Shudda for
they fall in line with his pre-determined understanding of Kalhana.* * 

*Kalhana's first-hand testimony:***

*Now, let us look into the historical references cited by Romila Thapar. Of
Banabhatta's Harshacharita, concerning Harsha of Kanauj (r.606-647), I have
no copy available here, so I will keep that for another paper. Meanwhile, I 
have been able to consult both the Sanskrit original and the English
translation of Kalhana's Rajatarangini, and that source provides a clinching
testimony.*

*Harsha or Harshadeva of **Kashmir** (r.1089-1111 ) has been called the "Nero
of **Kashmir**", and this "because of his cruelty" (S.B. Bhattacherje:
Encyclopaedia of Indian Events and Dates, Sterling Publ., Delhi 1995, p.A-20).
He is described by Kalhana as having looted and desecrated most Hindu and 
Buddhist temples in **Kashmir**, partly through an office which he had
created, viz. the "officer for despoiling god-temples". The general data on
11th-century **Kashmir** already militate against treating him as a typical 
Hindu king who did on purely Hindu grounds what Muslim kings also did, viz.
to destroy the places of worship of rival religions. For, **Kashmir** had
already been occupied by Masud Ghaznavi, son of Mahmud, in 1034, and Turkish 
troops were a permanent presence as mercenaries to the king.*

*Harsha was a fellow-traveller: not yet a full convert to Islam (he still
ate pork, as per Rajatarangini 7:1149), but quite adapted to the Islamic 
ways, for "he ever fostered with money the Turks, who were his centurions"
(7:1149). There was nothing Hindu about his iconoclasm, which targeted Hindu
temples, as if a Muslim king were to demolish mosques rather than temples. 
All temples in his kingdom except four (enumerated in 7:1096-1098, two of
them Buddhist) were damaged. This behaviour was so un-Hindu and so
characteristically Islamic that Kalhana reports: "In the village, the town 
or in Srinagara there was not one temple which was not despoiled by the Turk
king Harsha." (7:1095)*

*So there you have it: "the Turk king Harsha". Far from representing a
separate Hindu tradition of iconoclasm, Harsha of **Kashmir** was a somewhat 
peculiar (viz. fellow-traveller) representative of the Islamic tradition of
iconoclasm. Like Mahmud Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb, he despoiled and looted
Hindu shrines, not non-Hindu ones. Influenced by the Muslims in his employ, 
he behaved like a Muslim.*

*And this is said explicitly in the text which Romila Thapar cites as
proving the existence of Hindu iconoclasm. If she herself has read it at
all, she must be knowing that it doesn't support the claim she is making. 
Either she has just been bluffing, writing lies about Kalhana's testimony in
the hope that her readers would be too inert to check the source. Or she
simply hasn't read Kalhana's text in the first place. Either way, she has 
been caught in the act of making false claims about Kalhana's testimony even
while denouncing others for not having checked with Kalhana. *

*A.L.Basham*

Thankfully I did get to read Basham's article titled*"Harsha of 
**Kashmir**and the Iconoclast Ascetics"
*

Basham writes and I quote"The dissolute king Harsha or Harshadeva(AD
1089-1101),when in financial straits,was advised by his evil counseller
Lotsdhara to restore his fortunes by looting the temples and melting down 
the images of the gods"

It is evident from the sentence that it was financial problems (due to
various vices) that prompted him to resort to doing what he did.

Although Basham contradicts himself later in the same article by saying that 
the motive could not be financial alone but he attributes it to King
enjoying acts of heresy.He even contradicts Aurel Stein's explanation that
King had been under the influence of turuska's or (Muslims or outsiders) who 
in this case happened to be Muslims.
Even if we accept his explanation, there is nothing to prove that he
destroyed temples to promote his faith or ideology (Hinduism) while the
contrary can be proved by the following verse from Kalhana's Rajatarangni 
Book 7 verse 1095

*"In the village, the town or in Srinagara there was not one temple which
was not despoiled by the Turk king Harsha." *

Kalhana calling him a turk (which was a synonym for
Muslim/outsider/foreigner in Kalhana's vocabulary.At many places Kalhana
uses the term turuska's to describe Muslims.We will discuss the word Turuska
in detail when we analyse Shudda's references to Rajatarangni. 

Although I do not completely agree with either Basham or Keonard Elst,the
reasons for which are the following.

1.Koenard Elst has got it wrong that Kashmir was conquered by Masud of
Ghaznvi in 1034.There are no direct/indirect references or credible sources
of history to prove that fact.I agree with Shudda when he says that Islamic
rule was still some two centuries away.

2.Basham's assertion that we should look to Ajivikas as Harsh's source of 
his iconoclasm also seems to be a far fetched argument.Shudda himself
concludes his argument by stating the following"Basham's argument,albeit
speculative,is less reliant on conjecture than the automatic identification 
of Turuska with Muslim that bedevils the other efforts to wrestle with the

=== message truncated ===

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.